No. CAAP-10-0000188 - COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, a municipal corporation of the STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIDEV, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al., Defendants-Appellants. (CIVIL NO. 09-1-264K)
NO. CAAP-11-0000019 - COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, a municipal corporation of the STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIDEV, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees. (CIVIL NO. 10-1-427K)
Attorney(s) for Defendants-Appellants/Defendants-Appellees: Paul Alston, Maren L. Calvert and J. Blaine Rogers (Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing)
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee/Plaintiff-Appellant, County of Hawaiʻi: Lincoln S.T. Ashida, Corporation Counsel, Katherine A. Garson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Laureen L. Martin, Joseph K. Kamelamela, Julie K. Mecklenburg, Deputies Corporation Counsel
Attorney(s) for Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, Hawai`i Island Housing Trust: John R. Lacy and Claire E. Goldberg (Goodsill Anderson Quinn Stifel)
COURT: Foley, Reifurth, and Ginoza, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument took place at the:
University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
William S. Richardson School of Law
Moot Court Courtroom
2515 Dole Street
Honolulu, Hi 96822
NOTE: Order of Consolidation, filed November 23, 2011.
In this consolidated appeal, UniDev, LLC (UniDev) and the County of Hawai`i (County) appeal from separate orders entered by the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit (Circuit Circuit).
In CAAP-10-0000188, UniDev appeals from an order by the Circuit Court expunging a lis pendens recorded by UniDev, and an order denying UniDev's motion for reconsideration. UniDev argues that the Circuit Court erred in expunging its lis pendens because (1) Hawaiʻi law authorizes the recording of a lis pendens in Hawaii Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (HUFTA) cases; (2) remedies under HUFTA do not preclude recording a lis pendens; and (3) the Circuit Court improperly required UniDev to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its HUFTA claim.
In CAAP 11-0000019, the County appeals from Circuit Court orders which granted UniDev's motion to compel alternative dispute resolution and stayed certain proceedings in the Circuit Court. The County argues that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) failing to find UniDev waived its right to compel arbitration; (2) determining that the County was required to arbitrate pursuant to the subject agreements; (3) determining that all of the County's claims were subject to arbitration; and (4) determining that all of UniDev's counterclaims were subject to arbitration.